I fear you are right that San Diego taxpayers don't realize how badly they were taken to the cleaners with the massive Petco subsidy, still draining the city. Then, check out those condos in the ballpark district: they are doing very poorly -- few living there. The subsidized hotels aren't doing well, either. Best, Don Bauder

Sorry. You are wrong. Check Padres attendance for the last several years at Petco. It is lower than it was the last several years at Qualcomm. Attendance surged the first few years at Petco then dropped below the Qualcomm average. That's how the scam works: the team gets its fat subsidy, gets a new facility, raises prices and attracts fans initially because of the novelty effect. Then the novelty wears off and prices have to come down -- one reason the Padres have been lowering prices the last several years. Best, Don Bauder

I love all the moaning and handwringing over "disturbing environmentally sensitive areas"... but all of those moans go away if he pays enough money. Either up-front for a permit, or after the fact in fines.

If the land is so "environmentally sensitive", then someone who gives a poop should buy it from him and keep it the way they want.

The scenarios that govern Code Compliance Action are convoluted. A violation for Doug Manchester provides a perfectly legal way for Mr. Manchester to give money to the city. It is hard to take anything at face value, with the cast of characters we have here. The best way for the TMD to publicize San Diego would be to make a mini-series about what goes on here. Set at the Grand Del Mar Resort, of course.

Money rules in $an Diego, especially now in these tough times when a little publicity goes a very long way! Add to the equation, that they also own the only newspaper in town plus they have lots of lawyers and you begin to see why they feel they are above the laws meant for others less fortunate than themselves.

As far as the landing pad goes, why is San Diego so helicopter unfriendly?
I'd like to see a landing pad at every freeway cloverleaf, so we could have a Helicopter Air Taxi Service.

Has anyone had their house broken into lately? Please, forget it. The system has more important things to manage. After all, breaking and entering is usually done without malice. The burglar doesn't even know you. So it's OK.

Olson is in good hands. Tom Tosdal, Harvard Law graduate, is mentioned in a 2012 Mother Jonesarticle about arrests and charges for chalk writing during protests. Perhaps Judge Shore knew of the winning Florida case involving free speech, so thinks it's a great idea to shut down that line of defense.

If the prosecutor must show Malice as a material element of the statutory "offense" here, then the defense should be able to show an absence of Malice because he had an objectively reasonable belief he was expressing his First Amendment protected political opinions. Malice is a state of mind, and the defense has a defense here and must be permitted to make it.

Additionally, abuse of prosecutorial discretion should be in a pre-trial motion to dismiss. If the City Atty is on record as saying the same conduct--chalk writing by a child on the public right of way--would not be a chargeable offense--then the trigger for the decision to prosecute here was not the CONDUCT, but the CONTENT of the writings. The paper trail showing very active pressure from B of A to prosecute is great evidence of this also.

Tosdal exited the court room shortly after. "I've never heard that before, that a court can prohibit an argument of first amendment rights"
==
Judge Shore has now become the lead prosecutor, b/c he KNEW this case would not result in a conviction if ALL the facts were open to the jury-so he gamed and rigged the trial.

We can only hope that the jury looks at the absurdity of this claim of vandalism for what it is, namely an attempt to stifle criticism. I would not call an acquittal in this case "jury nullification." I'd call it common sense.

The problem is the judge is acting like the lead prosecutor by excluding evidence/legal theories that would sink the prosecutions case, like a free speech defense. This shit happens ALL the time. Cynthia Sommer was falsely convicted of 1st degree murder b/c the judge let the prosecution argue absurd issues (like she bought breast implants!!) in 98% of the case, instead of material evidence that pointed to guilt. If it can happen in a 25-life murder trial it can happen anywhere.

The best hope here is that at least one juror will refuse to vote for a conviction. Misdemeanors that have hung juries are only rarely retried--although Goldsmith could decide to do it--and he would have nothing more to worry about. One reason we have juries is to do what you suggest, i.e. vote one's conscience. Over the past couple centuries the US system has come to a point of telling juries that they are only judges of fact and evidence, and not the appropriateness of the law or the charges. That is not where it all started, and what is now dismissed as "jury nullification" was once the role of the jury. No matter how much instruction a judge gives to a jury and no matter how he/she cajoles the panel, people still think and react to a situation that they have to judge.

BTW, I doubt Olson would get jail time even if he were convicted of all of the counts. For pity's sake, it was just chalk, and having a judge slap him with the max jail time for each count (that's where the 13 years came from) is highly unlikely. Some probation and public service (perhaps removing graffiti) is more like it. But don't forget that this sweeping ruling opens the door to a successful appeal. And if Olson is convicted, many folks, including me, will donate to the cause.

The irony for me is last year I went to the San Diego police and attorney's office to get this guy who chalked over a hundred swastikas and other Nazi graffiti on an elementary school, and they told me that this Nazi was protected by the First Amendment and they couldn't prosecute him.
Nazis in elementary schools is ok, but criticizing a bank is not?
We need to dump Goldsmith now!